Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

originally posted by: Consvoli

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Science said COVID was from nature.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

No, lying scientists said that. Big difference. They hid the real science, they hid the gain of function research.

That's one of the hypothesis made initially but still hasn't been proven and nobody knows for sure if the virus is a result of a gain of functions research or it came naturally. Not all scientists accepted the initial but convenient hypothesis.

Well, on this point we can agree to disagree.
There were 15 US government agencies that knew of the gain of function research in the Wuhan lab...this just came out this week, thanks to the good work of Rand Paul and a whistleblower. There have been plenty of relevations from the very begining of the covid, the only question is was it an accidental leak or bio warefare.

originally posted by: strongfp

Not sure how to take an article seriously when it says something like this.

That statement is extremely false, but so overused by both sides it seems.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

I find the topic of Corona to be a bit distracting from "the topic of this discussion" (quoting Consvoli).

I also find it telling that Consvoli is willing to respond to that topic, yet his responses to my commentary said nothing about anything important that is actually in my comment. Such as responding to a specific quotation or admission by an evolutionist, such as the admission concerning how much closer the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures; or responding to the questions (especially the bolded one):

Why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes? (Latin: pithecus; whereas the Latin word for human is homo)? Why has no fossil been named pithecus-homo (ape-man)? They used to use the term “ape-men” all the time when telling their stories.

They are called pithecus (ape) after all. As is the one discussed in the OP.

But rather implying that all the important facts brought up in my commentary are "not the topic of this discussion", by means of ignoring the example above (referring to the example that contains the word "where"). And arguing that "evolution" ( a vague/ambiguous term when used by those intentionally not clear as to what exactly they are referring to; opening the door for a later switch to another subject falsely called "microevolution", as discussed before why that isn't "evolution" in the context of ape or apelike-to-man evolution; cause it helps promote the 'evolution is a fact' slogan) is not debatable. As if his opinion on that matter would matter to me if I just want to talk about some inconvenient facts as admitted to by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists for a change, that by reason of the fact that they tell us something about the behaviour in this field of the promotion of evolutionary philosophies are at least related to the topic of ape(like)-to-man evolution, and thus related to any so-called "research publications" connected to that topic (including the when, where and how, even when the 'how' matter is usually not discussed in most publications where the philosophy of vagueness* reigns supreme).

*: Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with. Especially when you also take the opportunity to capitalize on the ambiguity of language (often accompanied by keeping the comments short and devoid of any appropiate and adequate specification, allowing the tactic of distorting and twisting facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. And targeting the emotions, not your logical thinking abilities).

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: Consvoli

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Science said COVID was from nature.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

No, lying scientists said that. Big difference. They hid the real science, they hid the gain of function research.

That's one of the hypothesis made initially but still hasn't been proven and nobody knows for sure if the virus is a result of a gain of functions research or it came naturally. Not all scientists accepted the initial but convenient hypothesis.

Well, on this point we can agree to disagree.
There were 15 US government agencies that knew of the gain of function research in the Wuhan lab...this just came out this week, thanks to the good work of Rand Paul and a whistleblower. There have been plenty of relevations from the very begining of the covid, the only question is was it an accidental leak or bio warefare.

I know about the government agencies which are leaning towards the gain of function hypothesis but again we need more on it. It doesn't necessarily mean the original hypothesis was made in bad faith and scientists lied but that's a very different case to what we have here. We all know Covid was politicalized and it could be true the virus is a gain of functions result.

The origin of humans has not been proved yet and hominins may as well have originated in Europe. It's quite difficult to establish when it happened and where.

a reply to: whereislogic

Most researchers agree the hominins first evolved sometime between 9 and 7 million years ago. The when is still debated with Africa to be the most prevailing hypothesis but as we saw it could have been Europe. I am not quite sure why are you quoting the bible or discussing evolution. None of the scientists are arguing against evolution but the 'when' and the 'where'

a reply to: Consvoli

TSDR

The S in there stands for "short".

a reply to: strongfp

So Asians and the Nordic are descendants of Africa? How about the Native American (North and South)? Hispanics? I think we either were put or over eons survived in certain places. You can find the same cave or symbols in Africa as you can North or South America also.

What about the history India presents? There is soooo much.

The bottom line is which one is the mutation from the others.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's not false. Humans are apes.

If you're going to parrot such bold claims to challenge out of Africa do some basic research into terminology about human evolution.

a reply to: matafuchs

H. Erectus migrated out of Africa first, and modern H.Sapien followed from then out breeding H.Erectus and other hominins that had been competing with H.Erectus.

That's the extremely condensed version of it all that spans millions of years... there were no "nordic" or "asian" or "indians" 250k - 2million years ago.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: strongfp

So Asians and the Nordic are descendants of Africa? How about the Native American (North and South)? Hispanics? I think we either were put or over eons survived in certain places. You can find the same cave or symbols in Africa as you can North or South America also.

What about the history India presents? There is soooo much.

The bottom line is which one is the mutation from the others.

It's worth reading the paper linked because there are fossils of potential hominins found in Turkey dating back 7.2 million years ago and that's 200 thousands years before the first hominins allegedly evolved in Africa. I don't know if the author and co authors are right but if they are then that changes a lot.

originally posted by: strongfp

It's not false. Humans are apes.

If you're going to parrot such bold claims to challenge out of Africa do some basic research into terminology about human evolution.

I guess I didn't link correctly. I agree with you that Humans did not come from chimpanzees. The evolutionary path is humans and apes diverged from an earlier common ancestor 10 or so million years ago down their distinct lineages.

a reply to: Consvoli
My thoughts have always been intelligence growth in the species happened out of Africa. This isn't a huge surprise. No evidence of human knowledge growth in Africa. 90% 'everything south of Ethiopia' never developed reading or writing...in the hundreds of thousands of years they lived there.

originally posted by: OdinnsPapa
a reply to: Consvoli
My thoughts have always been intelligence growth in the species happened out of Africa. This isn't a huge surprise. No evidence of human knowledge growth in Africa. 90% 'everything south of Ethiopia' never developed reading or writing...in the hundreds of thousands of years they lived there.

There are many experts who say the ancestors of humans evolved everywhere and not just in Africa. It's a fascinating subject but it is highly politicalized and I don't know why. I have actually come across a number of articles and research papers that show worrying levels of politicization of the fields of archeology and anthropology (not to say corruption). I am thinking of another thread on this topic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas are apes yet have different evolutionary pathes, yet humans are exempt from basic biology?

originally posted by: strongfp

Chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas are apes yet have different evolutionary pathes, yet humans are exempt from basic biology?

How do you keep interpreting what I write so wrong...lol geez

No clue as to what you are suggesting here. I said this in my post "The evolutionary path is humans and apes diverged from an earlier common ancestor 10 or so million years ago down their distinct lineages."

What that means is we are all related but followed different evolutionary paths from each other because we split off from one another on our own branches and not some linear line. So back to the original idea...humans did not evolve from chimps.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Ah.. since the article made the claim that we evolved from apes, I assumed you meant that we split from ape populations when chimpanzee ancestor and human ancestor made the split. We all fall under the hominid category in todays world tho.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Xtrozero

Ah.. since the article made the claim that we evolved from apes, I assumed you meant that we split from ape populations when chimpanzee ancestor and human ancestor made the split. We all fall under the hominid category in todays world tho.

The author of the article isn't an expert but again he uses the term 'ape' in a careless manner. We did evolve from apelike ancestors.

humanorigins.si.edu...

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

Until recently it was accepted that this common ancestor looked like a chimpanzee.... So the question one could ask is if we evolved from this 'monkey' and the answer is yes. It looked like an ape and it didn't look like a trilobite.

a reply to: Consvoli

I gotta ask.

If chimps and modern humans split from a common ancestor, where do you suppose that common ancestor evolved?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Consvoli

I gotta ask.

If chimps and modern humans split from a common ancestor, where do you suppose that common ancestor evolved?

Depending on the hypothesis you want to adopt. It looks like there is more than one competing hypothesis out there.

originally posted by: strongfp

I gotta ask.

If chimps and modern humans split from a common ancestor, where do you suppose that common ancestor evolved?

A rodent-looking thing most likely 60+ million years ago. Humans and Chimp are rather new, apes, orangutangs, monkeys etc go back a lot farther, like 20 to 30 million years farther.